On the 5th April 2024 Aidan Kearney published a blog headed Canton Coverup Part 327: Thousands Of Cameras Would Have Picked Up Karen Read’s Allegedly Shattered Tail Light On Route 138 When She Drove From Canton To Dighton.
The blog rambles on about Karen Read and her enabling father William Read and their drive to Dighton, Massachusetts, a few hour after Karen Read murdered Boston police officer John O’Keefe.
Throughout his blog, Aidan Kearney included screenshots of maps and roads and referred to surveillance cameras on the route Karen Read and her father drove that day.
Aidan Kearney states in part;
Police regularly solve murders by getting surveillance videos that put suspects in certain places at certain times.
Yet seasoned State Police investigators did not ask a single one of these businesses or homeowners to look at surveillance video that could lead to a slam dunk conviction of a woman who allegedly murdered a Boston Police Officer.
Screenshot
Screenshot
Karen Read’s smashed taillight had already been caught on video by 8:23am on the day she committed her murder, via the dashcam footage of the patrol vehicle used by lieutenant Charles Rae and his colleague, when they carried out a welfare check on John O’Keefe’s niece and nephew.
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨Ladies and Gentlemen, step right up, step right up! Bill brings you the FINALE TO “THE STUPID TAILLIGHT PROJECT”by @Leopardo8🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨… pic.twitter.com/BnlowaYHHb
It's now been pointed out to Sean that his imagined scenario, concocted on the LTL show, where he claims Julie Nagel called her brother for a ride after seeing the attack on John, is laughably impossible, since her brother arrived at the… pic.twitter.com/FT5YR3X8BY
Warwick Tatford gave his evidence to the fatally flawed and biased post office inquiry on 15th of November 2023.
During the inquiry, at around 33:34 (see link at foot of blog), lead counsel to the inquiry Jason Beer asked Warwick Tatford about the ARQ (Audit Record Query) data relating to Seema Misra and her former West Byfleet branch.
At the foot of this blog are copies of extracts from the post office horizon IT inquiry transcripts (Originals here) and some copies of exhibits relating to the ARQ data
Misappropriation Of Lottery Monies
Seema Misra falsely accused 3 former staff members of stealing around £89k-£90k cash.
Their names were Shakia Suksener, Javed Badiwallia and Nadia Badiwalia.
Shakia Suksener, Javed Badiwalia and Nadia Badiwalia had left the shop and post office by February 2006, therefore they could not have been responsible for any thefts which followed thereafter.
Shakia
Warwick Tatford addressed some details relating to Seema Misra’s false allegations related to Shakia Suksener (outside of the jury). He stated “detailed defence statement that was served “on the 21st January 2010 “..there are references to the thieves that Mrs Misra thought she had found. Paragraph (c) says in fact that she was satisfied that Shakia Suksener was not accountable, not a theft, which does not tie in with the earlier letter where her identity is set out as a thief, but the incident with Javed Badiwalia is set out and also Nadia “Bakliwalia” it is spelt, I think that is an obvious typing error, and various other details are set out in these paragraphs ending in (f) setting out the general nature of the defence” (p.18 here)
In August 2006 a media article here highlighted the fact Seema Misra had said she had problems with staff “leaving”.
She admitted to the jury (and Warwick Tatford) that by the end of 2006 she “had puta stop to the thefts by employees” (p.90 & 91 here), therefore any subsequent thefts were down to her (and her husband Davinder Misra).
The October 2006 £23,374.50 Lottery Debt
In October 2006, some 8 months after Nadia and Javed Bakiwalla had left, Seema Misra was found to have misappropriated £23,374.50 relating to lottery and scratch card monies belonging to the post office.
She failed to transfer £23,374.50 cash from her (and her husbands) shop account into the post office’s account.
The post office agreed to allow this figure to be settled centrally on 21st November 2006 and for the debt to be paid back via monthly instalments from her salary (p.10 here & p.71 here).
The first 4 months payments, which she paid from January to April 2007 were £843, £842, £654.47 and £2,000, then in May 2007 it was agreed she would pay back the outstanding £19,034.03 in “nine instalments of £2,000” (P.11 here).
Misappropriation Continues
A post office letter dated 7th May 2007 (indicating Seema Misra’s misappropriation was continuing), read “We have previously written to you regarding debt that has been settled centrally and is to be deducted from your remuneration. Further debt has been added to this amount and so it has now become necessary to revise your original repayments. Your future repayments will be as follows commencing April 07 – one instalment of £2,000 followed by a further eight instalments of £2,000 per month, then a one off instalment of £1,034.03 in February 2008” (p.53 here)
Seema Misra was suspended on 14th January 2008 following a routine audit which found a shortfall of £74,609.84, she was also still owing the post office £3,034.03 for her previous misappropriated monies.
In a handwritten note passed to auditor Keith Noverre, on the day she was suspended, Seema Misra stated in part, “Lottery money was being taken from shop but never entered on horizon. Even on the shop side was low as well” (p.46 here)
Seema’s Confession
Keith Hadrill asked Seema during her evidence in chief, “So the months go by. The Post Office Horizon system is telling you that you should have X amount of cash or stock. Were they balancing, marrying up” to which she admitted she “didn’t do any checks“.
Keith Hadrill appeared shocked by her admission when he replied with “sorry?” to which Seema Misra stated “I didn’t do any checks to check the actual cash and all that. All I was doing print out a snapshot and entering into the system” (p.72 & 73 here).
Before the prosecution and defence gave their closing arguments to the jury, the jury asked the court 5 questions, 3 of which related to the misappropriation of the £23,374.50 lottery monies and Seema’s husband Davinder Misra.
Their first question was “when you buy a ticket for the Lottery is it on the till in the shop and how is it related to the Horizon system?” The judgetold them “The evidence is that Lottery tickets or scratch cards, whatever it is, are bought in the shop on a shop till. There is a printout at the end of the day showing how many were sold and that is transferred over to the post office” (p.15 here).
Their second question was “Has Mrs Misra’s husband the authority by the Post Office to unlock the Horizon system and get into the post office section?” The judge’s response was “The evidence is that the sub-postmaster or mistress is responsible for the post office. They train and employ their staff and staff have access to the Horizon system to undertake their duties.
The jury also asked “Was Mr Misra in charge of the Lottery till as well as Mrs Misra?” The judge told them “The answer to that is all shop employees, according to the evidence, operated the Lottery till including Mr Misra who was of course there on 14th January” (p.15 & 16 here).
Was Davinder Misra “caught red handed” stealing the post office’ lottery monies by Nadia and/or Javed Badiwalia in, or before February 2006, and was this the reason why Davinder chose to harass Javed and spread malicious rumours about Javed allegedly stealing “£1,000”/“£2,000”, and was this the reason why he chose to contact Surrey police and report Nadia for allegedly being “an illegal immigrant” in April 2006?
Or was it Seema Misra who caught her husband stealing and chose to side with him out of loyalty?
Also why would the Misra’s choose to employ an alleged “illegal immigrant”?
Caught Red Handed
During trial, when referring to police crime reports, Jonathan Longman stated “that the suspect on this crime report was Mr Kumar Davinder Misra” (p.18 here).
Seema Misra did not report any alleged staff thefts to either the post office or the police, that is until she was ‘caught red handed’ when the auditors turned up in January 2008.
Questions For Warwick Tatford
“The date range in the theft charge allegation” (15 November 2006 and January 2008) tallies with around the date Seema Misra was found to have “misappropriated” the £23,374.50 lottery and scratch card monies.
Seema Misra began trading at the end of June/early July 2005 with “cash, stocks and vouchers” totalling £65,426.68, within months there were shortfalls.
A post office letter dated 19th December 2005 stated in part “Outstanding debt to be deducted from remuneration we now intend to authorise deduction from the remuneration of £3,184.53 (p.51 & 52 here).
What did Warwick Tatford discover with regards Shakia Suksener, Javed Badiwallia and Nadia Badiwalia in relation to the dates they stopped working for the Misra’s?
What did Warwick Tatford discover following the serving of Seema Misra’s defence statements?
Why did Warwick Tatford choose to not address any of the above during his evidence to the inquiry?
Jason Beer: Can we look at that, please. It’s POL00045010. This accompanied your brief and your instructions. Are these the charges in respect of which Mrs Misra had been committed by the Magistrates Court to the Crown Court?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: If we pan out a little bit, we see that Charge 1 was a theft allegation of stealing £74,000-odd and the remaining four are false accounting charges –
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: As you’ve said. So one theft, four false accounting. The date range in the theft allegation is 15 November 2006 and 14 January 2008?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: You say in your witness statement – I’m so sorry. I wonder whether we can turn to POL00051092. We can see an email from you to Jarnail Singh on 10 March, saying: “Please find indictment attached for Misra, which needs to be lodged today.” I think we’ve seen in your instructions that the deadline for you settling the indictment was, indeed, 10 March. Then if we can look, please, at POL00051149, we can see an indictment. You say in your witness statement that you do not believe that this is a copy of the indictment that you settled and, instead, it was a copy included in your papers as a draft indictment.
Warwick Tatford: Yes, I think that’s right, yes.
Jason Beer: Just dealing with those two things separately, why it might not be a copy of the indictment that you settled: plainly it wasn’t the one enclosed with the email because we can see a T-number written in hand on the top right-hand side. That wouldn’t have been included in the attachment to your email, would it?
Warwick Tatford: No
Jason Beer: If we look at page 3, please, at the foot of the page, we can see it’s dated 16 March 2009, again in hand, which is after your email of 10 March, yes?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: Then if we look at the very foot of the page, we can see that there’s a character string suggesting that this document may have come from a drive or may have been saved in a drive relating to Jarnail Singh; can you see that?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, I do
Jason Beer: So that, I think, establishes the first part of the proposition that it’s not the one that was attached to your email. But you tell us as well, that you think this was a copy included in your papers as a draft indictment. That’s unlikely, isn’t it, given these features, the three features?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, that’s right, looking at the dates. I said that, I think, because there often would be a draft indictment.
Jason Beer: Well, the instructions that you received set out the enclosures and draft indictment isn’t one of them?
Warwick Tatford: Oh, well, I’ve missed that. That’s me thinking – making a mistake because of other cases, then.
Jason Beer: I just want to look at the substance then, whether this looks to be the indictment that you settled, albeit dates and signatures have been added after you settled it. Can we just look at page 4, please, which is the next page, and scroll down, and scroll down. Is that the kind of back sheet that you would prepare when you were settling an indictment?
Warwick Tatford: No, I wouldn’t do a back sheet. If I sent an indictment by email, I would simply send it as an attachment to the email, I think. A back sheet – in this – around this time, we were still not using computers anywhere near as much as the barristers use them now but I would only send – attach a back sheet to a written piece of work, which was sent in the DX.
Jason Beer: : If we scroll up, please, we can see this has got a “Received” stamp on it of 11 March 2009, the day after you settled it. Do you think you sent one out in the post or by DX too?
Warwick Tatford: No, I don’t think so. I think I simply sent one out by email. The reason – the reason I don’t think this is the indictment I drafted is simply because of the formatting. I don’t think I’d have underlined names in quite the way it is. I may be in error about this because I’ve noticed my formatting generally is very different from now I format matters now. Looking at the dates, this might well be the indictment I drafted. I thought that it wasn’t because of the way it’s formatted but I’m not sure, I’m afraid. I don’t think there’s any significant difference from the indictment I drafted and the original draft.
Jason Beer: When you say the indictment that you settled and the original draft, what are you referring to as the original draft?
Warwick Tatford: Oh, the charges, I think, in this case, as there wasn’t a draft indictment, it would be the charges. So I used the charges, I compared them against the evidence and drafted the indictment. Maybe – I’m so sorry – sorry.
Jason Beer: In fact, if we look back at page 1 of the indictment, we can see there are some material changes. The theft count, you can see the period of the alleged theft is expanded in terms of its start date – can you see that
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: And this remained so, including up to the point of arraignment and at trial, 29 June 2005. Then if we look at the accounts, remembering previously there were four counts of false accounting, if we just scroll through this document – and keep going. We can see there are seven counts in total, six counts of false accounting. So it’s expanded from four to six. You think that was your work, the –
Warwick Tatford: Oh, yes, certainly the – focusing on the date is helpful because I’d have begun it with the beginning of Mrs Misra’s time at the West Byfleet office. The more I look at this, it may be I was misled by the way it was formatted. This may well be the indictment I drafted. I’m sorry if I made a mistake about that.
Jason Beer: That’s all right. Just going back to Count 1, then, and the theft, I think you just said that you expanded the period of coverage from the date that Mrs Misra started in the Post Office, at West Byfleet, that being 29 June 2005.
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: At the point of settling the indictment, had you got anything such as ARQ data?
Warwick Tatford: No Jason Beer: Did you subsequently receive ARQ data?
Warwick Tatford: Well, it was certainly – I think I did, I must have done. The defence was served it, I would have had it served at the same time. I know I advised that it be – that it be served on a disk, I think; they wished to print it out. I’m trying to remember whether I had a full copy myself but I would have thought I did, but possibly just on a CD-ROM.
Jason Beer: Thank you. If we just look at some other material that may help you
Warwick Tatford: Of course
Jason Beer: FUJ00122707. This is Penny Thomas, an employee of Fujitsu, her witness statement for the purposes of the Seema Misra prosecution, dated 4 February 2010. You can see what she says in the opening paragraph, if we just scroll down a little bit, to remind you of who she was. If we then turn to page 5, please, in that first substantive paragraph, she produces a copy of some ARQs, and she gives the number as her exhibit PT1, and produces a CD as her exhibit PT2.
Warwick Tatford: Yes, I see
Jason Beer: Then, if we go to page 7, please. This is a document that she attaches to her witness statement, which appears to give the date range of the ARQ data that she was exhibiting. Can you see the date range in the right-hand column three boxes down –
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: 1 December 2006 until 31 December 2007. That period is a limited period covering only the false accounting charges, rather than the whole of the theft period, which ran from when Mrs Misra took over West Byfleet on 29 June 2005 to 14 January 2008. Do you know why that was, why the ARQ data was obtained for a different period of time than the allegations in Count 1?
Warwick Tatford: The – well, I think this ties in with the – what I set out in my abuse of process argument because the Post Office told me that it was – because of their contractual relations with Fujitsu, they wouldn’t be able to have ARQ data to cover the full indictment period and I’ve set out the reasons what – as to what I was told about that in my abuse of process argument. I acknowledge straightaway that the Court of Appeal in Hamilton have said that the full material must be served but I’ve set out the explanation as to why a shorter period was chosen. It is to do with the cost and the contractual arrangements but, also, a shorter period was chosen so that there could be a focus on a time when the data may not be affected by the thefts that Mrs Misra said that she’d dealt with.
Jason Beer: So that’s the explanation, cutting through matters, that you put when cross-examining the defence expert, Professor McLachlan?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: You said – I’m not going to turn it up for the moment – the rationale behind why you were given that 13-month period, ie December ‘06 to the end of December ‘07, is because it’s not tainted by any suggestion of theft, ie suggestion of theft made by Mrs Misra. It’s clean data to look at for computer error.
Warwick Tatford: Yes, not tainted by theft by employees of Mrs Misra, not Mrs Misra herself. It’s to – clean data to focus on whether any patterns could be seen that might be suggestive of Horizon problems. It was really to focus on that – the three possibilities, that possibility that was raised by her defence at the trial.
Jason Beer: Professor McLachlan replied “But I requested the data for the entire period”, and you said: “I fully accept that but, if one requested and received every piece of paper for West Byfleet, we would probably fill this room.” Is that your understanding of why the data was not requested for the entirety of the period of the theft count, ie cost and volume?
Warwick Tatford: Cost, volume, those were the main reasons, I’m afraid. It was also – there was the additional consideration of an untainted period but I – the dominant factors were cost – the dominant factor was cost and the contractual relationship with Fujitsu, I think.
Jason Beer: I think you candidly accept in you witness statement that, on reflection, this was the wrong approach?
Warwick Tatford: Yes. Very much so. And – well, I set out reasons for that. I agree. I accept that. Yes.
Jason Beer: Would I summarise them correctly as follows: the Crown chose to charge an ongoing theft over a long period of time?
Warwick Tatford: Yes.
Jason Beer: Once the defence raised the reliability of Horizon, disclosing the Horizon data for the whole of the indictment period was not a matter of disclosing unused material; it was also the primary evidence upon which the Crown relied in order to prove that the property belonging to another had been appropriated by the defendant?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, that’s right, it was served as evidence.
Jason Beer: In other words, that data was necessary to prove the elements of the offence of theft?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, I would agree with that.
Jason Beer: Therefore, Mrs Misra was entitled to receive the entirety of the data for that period as served evidence, so that her expert could analyse it and see whether the Crown had indeed proved its case?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, I certainly would agree with that now. I’ve explained the reasoning. I think the reasoning now was wrong, as exposed by the Court of Appeal. But, actually, the way that you’ve exposed it shows that it’s wrong simply in its basic logic.
Jason Beer: Did you consider that the theft and false accounting charges were essentially alleging the same criminal conduct?
Warwick Tatford: No. I was aware of the case of Eden, which I referred to in my abuse of process argument, and the Crown has to consider very carefully whether to charge both types of offending. In this case, it was fully justified because it allowed Mrs Misra to plead guilty to what she accepted but also allowed the Crown, if it had the evidence to do so, to pursue the clearly more serious allegation of theft.
Warwick Tatford:
Jason Beer: So these were separate offences, reflective of two different types of alleged criminal conduct
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: The first being a theft charge relating to the alleged stealing of the money, the second being a false accounting charge or a series of false accounting charges relating to the alleged covering up of the theft?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, the false accounting was the covering up but Mrs Misra, in her interview, suggested she was covering up for thefts of others, so there was a different motive for that offence, which made it a less serious offence. If she was only convicted of that offence alone and found not guilty of the theft, she’d get a very different sentence. That’s why I thought it very appropriate to have the two different kinds of offending, albeit they’re linked but the motivations were different.
Copy of Exhibit FUJ00122707
Tap on the below to hear more of Warwick Tatford’s evidence or click here to read the transcripts;
Warwick Tatford gave his evidence to the fatally flawed and biased post office inquiry on 15th of November 2023.
During the inquiry, at around 33:34 (see link at foot of blog), lead counsel to the inquiry Jason Beer asked Warwick Tatford about the ARQ (Audit Record Query) data relating to Seema Misra and her former West Byfleet branch.
At the foot of this blog are copies of extracts from the post office horizon IT inquiry transcripts (Originals here) and some copies of exhibits relating to the ARQ data
Misappropriation Of Lottery Monies
Seema Misra falsely accused 3 former staff members of stealing around £89k-£90k cash.
Their names were Shakia Suksener, Javed Badiwallia and Nadia Badiwalia.
Shakia Suksener, Javed Badiwalia and Nadia Badiwalia had left the shop and post office by February 2006, therefore they could not have been responsible for any thefts which followed thereafter.
Shakia
Warwick Tatford addressed some details relating to Seema Misra’s false allegations related to Shakia Suksener (outside of the jury). He stated “detailed defence statement that was served “on the 21st January 2010 “..there are references to the thieves that Mrs Misra thought she had found. Paragraph (c) says in fact that she was satisfied that Shakia Suksener was not accountable, not a theft, which does not tie in with the earlier letter where her identity is set out as a thief, but the incident with Javed Badiwalia is set out and also Nadia “Bakliwalia” it is spelt, I think that is an obvious typing error, and various other details are set out in these paragraphs ending in (f) setting out the general nature of the defence” (p.18 here)
In August 2006 a media article here highlighted the fact Seema Misra had said she had problems with staff “leaving”.
Seema Misra admitted to the jury (and Warwick Tatford) that by the end of 2006 she “had puta stop to the thefts by employees” (p.90 & 91 here), therefore any subsequent thefts were down to her (and her husband Davinder Misra).
The October 2006 £23,374.50 Lottery Debt
In October 2006 (some 8 months after Nadia and Javed Bakiwalla had left) Seema Misra was found to have misappropriated £23,374.50 relating to lottery and scratch card monies belonging to the post office.
She failed to transfer £23,374.50 cash from her (and her husbands) shop account into the post office’s account.
The post office agreed to allow this figure to be settled centrally on 21st November 2006 and for the debt to be paid back via monthly instalments from her salary (p.10 here & p.71 here).
The first 4 months payments, which she paid from January to April 2007 were £843, £842, £654.47 and £2,000, then in May 2007 it was agreed she would pay back the outstanding £19,034.03 in “nine instalments of £2,000” (P.11 here).
Misappropriation Continues
A post office letter dated 7th May 2007 (indicating Seema Misra’s misappropriation was continuing), read “We have previously written to you regarding debt that has been settled centrally and is to be deducted from your remuneration. Further debt has been added to this amount and so it has now become necessary to revise your original repayments. Your future repayments will be as follows commencing April 07 – one instalment of £2,000 followed by a further eight instalments of £2,000 per month, then a one off instalment of £1,034.03 in February 2008” (p.53 here)
Seema Misra was suspended on 14th January 2008 still owing the post office £3,034.03for her misappropriated monies.
In a handwritten note passed to Keith Noverre, on the day she was suspended from the post office, Seema Misra stated in part, “Lottery money was being taken from shop but never entered on horizon. Even on the shop side was low as well” (p.46 here)
Seema’s Confession
Keith Hadrill asked Seema during her evidence in chief, “So the months go by. The Post Office Horizon system is telling you that you should have X amount of cash or stock. Were they balancing, marrying up” to which she admitted she “didn’t do any checks“.
Keith Hadrill appeared shocked by her admission when he replied with “sorry?” to which Seema Misra stated “I didn’t do any checks to check the actual cash and all that. All I was doing print out a snapshot and entering into the system” (p.72 & 73 here).
Before the prosecution and defence gave their closing arguments to the jury, the jury asked the court 5 questions, 3 of which related to the misappropriation of the £23,374.50 lottery monies and Seema’s husband Davinder Misra.
Their first question was “when you buy a ticket for the Lottery is it on the till in the shop and how is it related to the Horizon system?” The judgetold them “The evidence is that Lottery tickets or scratch cards, whatever it is, are bought in the shop on a shop till. There is a printout at the end of the day showing how many were sold and that is transferred over to the post office” (p.15 here).
Their second question was “Has Mrs Misra’s husband the authority by the Post Office to unlock the Horizon system and get into the post office section?” The judge responded to this with “The evidence is that the sub-postmaster or mistress is responsible for the post office. They train and employ their staff and staff have access to the Horizon system to undertake their duties.
The jury also asked “Was Mr Misra in charge of the Lottery till as well as Mrs Misra?” The judge stated “The answer to that is all shop employees, according to the evidence, operated the Lottery till including Mr Misra who was of course there on 14th January” (p.15 & 16 here).
Was Davinder Misra “caught red handed” stealing the post office’ lottery monies by Nadia and/or Javed Badiwalia in, or before February 2006, and was this the reason why Davinder chose to harass Javed and spread malicious rumours about Javed allegedly stealing “£1,000”/“£2,000”, and was this the reason why he chose to contact Surrey police and report Nadia for allegedly being “an illegal immigrant” in April 2006?
Also why would the Misra’s choose to employ an alleged “illegal immigrant”?
Caught Red Handed
During trial, when referring to police crime reports, Jonathan Longman stated “that the suspect on this crime report was Mr Kumar Davinder Misra” (p.18 here).
Seema Misra did not report any alleged staff thefts to either the post office or the police, that is until she was caught red handed when the auditors turned up in January 2008.
Or was it Seema Misra who caught her husband stealing and chose to side with him out of loyalty?
Questions For Warwick Tatford
“The date range in the theft charge allegation” (15 November 2006 and January 2008) tallies with around the date Seema Misra was found to have “misappropriated” the £23,374.50 lottery and scratch card monies.
Seema Misra began trading at the end of June/early July 2005 with “cash, stocks and vouchers” totalling £65,426.68, within months there were shortfalls.
A post office letter dated 19th December 2005 stated in part “Outstanding debt to be deducted from remuneration we now intend to authorise deduction from the remuneration of £3,184.53 (p.51 & 52 here).
What did Warwick Tatford discover with regards Shakia Suksener, Javed Badiwallia and Nadia Badiwalia in relation to the dates they stopped working for the Misra’s?
What did Warwick Tatford discover following the serving of Seema Misra’s defence statements?
Why did Warwick Tatford choose to not address any of the above during his evidence to the inquiry?
Jason Beer: Can we look at that, please. It’s POL00045010. This accompanied your brief and your instructions. Are these the charges in respect of which Mrs Misra had been committed by the Magistrates Court to the Crown Court?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: If we pan out a little bit, we see that Charge 1 was a theft allegation of stealing £74,000-odd and the remaining four are false accounting charges –
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: As you’ve said. So one theft, four false accounting. The date range in the theft allegation is 15 November 2006 and 14 January 2008?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: You say in your witness statement – I’m so sorry. I wonder whether we can turn to POL00051092. We can see an email from you to Jarnail Singh on 10 March, saying: “Please find indictment attached for Misra, which needs to be lodged today.” I think we’ve seen in your instructions that the deadline for you settling the indictment was, indeed, 10 March. Then if we can look, please, at POL00051149, we can see an indictment. You say in your witness statement that you do not believe that this is a copy of the indictment that you settled and, instead, it was a copy included in your papers as a draft indictment.
Warwick Tatford: Yes, I think that’s right, yes.
Jason Beer: Just dealing with those two things separately, why it might not be a copy of the indictment that you settled: plainly it wasn’t the one enclosed with the email because we can see a T-number written in hand on the top right-hand side. That wouldn’t have been included in the attachment to your email, would it?
Warwick Tatford: No
Jason Beer: If we look at page 3, please, at the foot of the page, we can see it’s dated 16 March 2009, again in hand, which is after your email of 10 March, yes?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: Then if we look at the very foot of the page, we can see that there’s a character string suggesting that this document may have come from a drive or may have been saved in a drive relating to Jarnail Singh; can you see that?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, I do
Jason Beer: So that, I think, establishes the first part of the proposition that it’s not the one that was attached to your email. But you tell us as well, that you think this was a copy included in your papers as a draft indictment. That’s unlikely, isn’t it, given these features, the three features?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, that’s right, looking at the dates. I said that, I think, because there often would be a draft indictment.
Jason Beer: Well, the instructions that you received set out the enclosures and draft indictment isn’t one of them?
Warwick Tatford: Oh, well, I’ve missed that. That’s me thinking – making a mistake because of other cases, then.
Jason Beer: I just want to look at the substance then, whether this looks to be the indictment that you settled, albeit dates and signatures have been added after you settled it. Can we just look at page 4, please, which is the next page, and scroll down, and scroll down. Is that the kind of back sheet that you would prepare when you were settling an indictment?
Warwick Tatford: No, I wouldn’t do a back sheet. If I sent an indictment by email, I would simply send it as an attachment to the email, I think. A back sheet – in this – around this time, we were still not using computers anywhere near as much as the barristers use them now but I would only send – attach a back sheet to a written piece of work, which was sent in the DX.
Jason Beer: : If we scroll up, please, we can see this has got a “Received” stamp on it of 11 March 2009, the day after you settled it. Do you think you sent one out in the post or by DX too?
Warwick Tatford: No, I don’t think so. I think I simply sent one out by email. The reason – the reason I don’t think this is the indictment I drafted is simply because of the formatting. I don’t think I’d have underlined names in quite the way it is. I may be in error about this because I’ve noticed my formatting generally is very different from now I format matters now. Looking at the dates, this might well be the indictment I drafted. I thought that it wasn’t because of the way it’s formatted but I’m not sure, I’m afraid. I don’t think there’s any significant difference from the indictment I drafted and the original draft.
Jason Beer: When you say the indictment that you settled and the original draft, what are you referring to as the original draft?
Warwick Tatford: Oh, the charges, I think, in this case, as there wasn’t a draft indictment, it would be the charges. So I used the charges, I compared them against the evidence and drafted the indictment. Maybe – I’m so sorry – sorry.
Jason Beer: In fact, if we look back at page 1 of the indictment, we can see there are some material changes. The theft count, you can see the period of the alleged theft is expanded in terms of its start date – can you see that
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: And this remained so, including up to the point of arraignment and at trial, 29 June 2005. Then if we look at the accounts, remembering previously there were four counts of false accounting, if we just scroll through this document – and keep going. We can see there are seven counts in total, six counts of false accounting. So it’s expanded from four to six. You think that was your work, the –
Warwick Tatford: Oh, yes, certainly the – focusing on the date is helpful because I’d have begun it with the beginning of Mrs Misra’s time at the West Byfleet office. The more I look at this, it may be I was misled by the way it was formatted. This may well be the indictment I drafted. I’m sorry if I made a mistake about that.
Jason Beer: That’s all right. Just going back to Count 1, then, and the theft, I think you just said that you expanded the period of coverage from the date that Mrs Misra started in the Post Office, at West Byfleet, that being 29 June 2005.
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: At the point of settling the indictment, had you got anything such as ARQ data?
Warwick Tatford: No Jason Beer: Did you subsequently receive ARQ data?
Warwick Tatford: Well, it was certainly – I think I did, I must have done. The defence was served it, I would have had it served at the same time. I know I advised that it be – that it be served on a disk, I think; they wished to print it out. I’m trying to remember whether I had a full copy myself but I would have thought I did, but possibly just on a CD-ROM.
Jason Beer: Thank you. If we just look at some other material that may help you
Warwick Tatford: Of course
Jason Beer: FUJ00122707. This is Penny Thomas, an employee of Fujitsu, her witness statement for the purposes of the Seema Misra prosecution, dated 4 February 2010. You can see what she says in the opening paragraph, if we just scroll down a little bit, to remind you of who she was. If we then turn to page 5, please, in that first substantive paragraph, she produces a copy of some ARQs, and she gives the number as her exhibit PT1, and produces a CD as her exhibit PT2.
Warwick Tatford: Yes, I see
Jason Beer: Then, if we go to page 7, please. This is a document that she attaches to her witness statement, which appears to give the date range of the ARQ data that she was exhibiting. Can you see the date range in the right-hand column three boxes down –
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: 1 December 2006 until 31 December 2007. That period is a limited period covering only the false accounting charges, rather than the whole of the theft period, which ran from when Mrs Misra took over West Byfleet on 29 June 2005 to 14 January 2008. Do you know why that was, why the ARQ data was obtained for a different period of time than the allegations in Count 1?
Warwick Tatford: The – well, I think this ties in with the – what I set out in my abuse of process argument because the Post Office told me that it was – because of their contractual relations with Fujitsu, they wouldn’t be able to have ARQ data to cover the full indictment period and I’ve set out the reasons what – as to what I was told about that in my abuse of process argument. I acknowledge straightaway that the Court of Appeal in Hamilton have said that the full material must be served but I’ve set out the explanation as to why a shorter period was chosen. It is to do with the cost and the contractual arrangements but, also, a shorter period was chosen so that there could be a focus on a time when the data may not be affected by the thefts that Mrs Misra said that she’d dealt with.
Jason Beer: So that’s the explanation, cutting through matters, that you put when cross-examining the defence expert, Professor McLachlan?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: You said – I’m not going to turn it up for the moment – the rationale behind why you were given that 13-month period, ie December ‘06 to the end of December ‘07, is because it’s not tainted by any suggestion of theft, ie suggestion of theft made by Mrs Misra. It’s clean data to look at for computer error.
Warwick Tatford: Yes, not tainted by theft by employees of Mrs Misra, not Mrs Misra herself. It’s to – clean data to focus on whether any patterns could be seen that might be suggestive of Horizon problems. It was really to focus on that – the three possibilities, that possibility that was raised by her defence at the trial.
Jason Beer: Professor McLachlan replied “But I requested the data for the entire period”, and you said: “I fully accept that but, if one requested and received every piece of paper for West Byfleet, we would probably fill this room.” Is that your understanding of why the data was not requested for the entirety of the period of the theft count, ie cost and volume?
Warwick Tatford: Cost, volume, those were the main reasons, I’m afraid. It was also – there was the additional consideration of an untainted period but I – the dominant factors were cost – the dominant factor was cost and the contractual relationship with Fujitsu, I think.
Jason Beer: I think you candidly accept in you witness statement that, on reflection, this was the wrong approach?
Warwick Tatford: Yes. Very much so. And – well, I set out reasons for that. I agree. I accept that. Yes.
Jason Beer: Would I summarise them correctly as follows: the Crown chose to charge an ongoing theft over a long period of time?
Warwick Tatford: Yes.
Jason Beer: Once the defence raised the reliability of Horizon, disclosing the Horizon data for the whole of the indictment period was not a matter of disclosing unused material; it was also the primary evidence upon which the Crown relied in order to prove that the property belonging to another had been appropriated by the defendant?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, that’s right, it was served as evidence.
Jason Beer: In other words, that data was necessary to prove the elements of the offence of theft?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, I would agree with that.
Jason Beer: Therefore, Mrs Misra was entitled to receive the entirety of the data for that period as served evidence, so that her expert could analyse it and see whether the Crown had indeed proved its case?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, I certainly would agree with that now. I’ve explained the reasoning. I think the reasoning now was wrong, as exposed by the Court of Appeal. But, actually, the way that you’ve exposed it shows that it’s wrong simply in its basic logic.
Jason Beer: Did you consider that the theft and false accounting charges were essentially alleging the same criminal conduct?
Warwick Tatford: No. I was aware of the case of Eden, which I referred to in my abuse of process argument, and the Crown has to consider very carefully whether to charge both types of offending. In this case, it was fully justified because it allowed Mrs Misra to plead guilty to what she accepted but also allowed the Crown, if it had the evidence to do so, to pursue the clearly more serious allegation of theft.
Warwick Tatford:
Jason Beer: So these were separate offences, reflective of two different types of alleged criminal conduct
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: The first being a theft charge relating to the alleged stealing of the money, the second being a false accounting charge or a series of false accounting charges relating to the alleged covering up of the theft?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, the false accounting was the covering up but Mrs Misra, in her interview, suggested she was covering up for thefts of others, so there was a different motive for that offence, which made it a less serious offence. If she was only convicted of that offence alone and found not guilty of the theft, she’d get a very different sentence. That’s why I thought it very appropriate to have the two different kinds of offending, albeit they’re linked but the motivations were different.
As well as prosecuting embezzler Seema Misra, another of Warwick Tatford’s cases was that of Clive Haverleywho stole £17,000.
Excerpts from an article by Jasper Pearce for The Boar read;
A Post Office clerk working at the University’s Post Office who stole £17,000 from the Royal Mail has been spared jail, after pleading guilty in Coventry Crown Court.
Clive Haverley, 57, had been cooking the books from March 2007 in the Costcutter Post Office while working behind the counter. He was sentenced to 36 weeks in prison, suspended for a year, on the condition that he completes 150 hours of unpaid work.
Haverley had been employed on Warwick campus since 1991, and was responsible for maintaining the branch’s accounts on a computer system, which “depends on the honesty of the person responsible for using it,” the prosecution revealed in court last week.
A Post Office Ltd spokesman said: “All staff who work in post offices are in a unique position of trust, and it is always disappointing when that trust is breached. The overwhelming majority of people who work in our branch network are professional, honest and provide the highest standards of service.”
Richard Davenport, the defence lawyer who works with Equity Chambers, attempted to explain Haverley’s actions: “Mr Haverley suffers from prostate cancer, he’s lost his job and he’s lost his respect in the local community. He feels deeply ashamed for what he’s done and he will repay every penny he’s stolen and even more than he took in the first place.”
Haverley has already agreed to repay the money he owes to the Royal Mail, secured against the value of his property. No statement was available from Haverley by way of further explanation, but it has been reported that he is in considerable debt.
He was interviewed about the losses on two occasions before coming clean.
Five other staff from the branch were suspended upon the discovery of Mr Haverley’s crime, but were not considered suspects. A new postmaster has since started work there.
The prosecuting attorney, Warwick Tatford, has a long history of prosecuting fraud cases on behalf of the Post Office, which has recently been the victim of a number of fraudsters.
In March, Sabjit Benning was convicted of embezzling over £194,000 from a Post Office in Northern Ireland, and last year two consecutive postmasters were convicted of taking a total of £225,000 from Sway Post Office in the New Forest.
Sub-postmaster Ian Kirk stole £55,180 between November 2003 and July 2006.
Ian Kirk ran the Sway post office inside a Newsagent shop in the New Forrest, he “told police he had been burgled while he was in the toilet”.
Excerpts from a Daily Echo article by Fiona Pendlebury read;
Prosecutor Warwick Tatford said that the Post Office had been alerted by the branch keeping too much money on the premises overnight.
Numerous requests were made to return several thousand pounds but Kirk did not comply, the court heard.
On June 30 last year investigators went to find out what was going on and “that’s when the cat slipped out of the bag”, said Mr Tatford.
However, when investigators arrived, Kirk initially “fobbed them off”, he said.
After 30 minutes waiting for the time delay to unlock the safe, Kirk said it had not been set properly and they had to wait another 45 minutes.
When the investigators said they would wait, Kirk told them that some weeks previously he had been the victim of a theft.
When interviewed, Kirk said he had been putting £60,000 into pouches on June 16 last year in order to return it.
After finding it gone when he came back from the toilet, he panicked.
Giving evidence to the court, Kirk said he had received “overwhelming” support and letters from well wishers.
The court also heard that Kirk had asked for the trial to be adjourned in September so he could produce bank documents that would have “destroyed the prosecution case” but had been unable to produce them.
Janet Ryan received an award in 2007 similar to what Seema Misra had done previously.
Excerpts from a KentOnline article read;
Janet Ryan
A village sub-postmistress who stole more than £15,000 to shore up the ailing shop side of the business has been spared a jail sentence.
Janet Ryan was told by a judge he considered the community would not be best served by sending her to prison.
Maidstone Crown Court heard the 49-year-old “borrowed” £15,517 from Appledore post office in The Street over a nine-month period.
Ryan and her husband took over the post office and shop in June 2006 when it was said to be “somewhat rundown”.
Frank Winslett, defending, said the couple worked hard and to some extent it paid off.
In 2007, it won an award for best village shop in the south.
But in June last year an audit revealed a “hole” in accounts. Ryan made full and frank admissions she had taken the money.
Warwick Tatford, prosecuting, said it had become apparent a large amount of cheques produced at the post office never arrived at the central office.
When interviewed, Ryan said she borrowed the money because there were problems with the shop.
“She was frank enough to admit full dishonesty,” said Mr Tatford. “She had hidden money stolen by inventing transactions, saying the money had been spent.
“Theft of about £1,400 had been hidden by inflation of the amount of Euros there. A large hole was found in the accounts.
“Part of the hole involved genuine mistakes, some £3,000. She has paid the money back.”
Mr Winslett said it was apparent Ryan, who admitted theft and nine fraud offences, would be found out when there was an audit.
Father of one Warnes received a nine-month suspended sentence, allowing him to continue working at his shop and pay off the loans
When sub postmaster Graham Warnes was caught stealing £28,000 from Royal Mail, his reputation as a popular and respected local figure faced ruin.
But rather than treat him as a pariah, the community banded together to support him in an extraordinary show of generosity.
They lent him enough to pay off the debt after learning he only took the money to prop up his village shop when it fell into financial trouble.
Now their charity has snowballed, with a judge sparing the 55-year-old jail when she heard how the people of Fowlmere, near Royston in Hertfordshire, still held him in high regard.
Warnes, who was given a nine-month suspended sentence, will now be able to go back to working at the shop and sub post office he ran for more than 20 years and pay off the loans.
Yesterday he said: ‘All I can say is a big thank you to the villagers for their support and I’ll do all I can to put things right.
‘It’s not until something like this happens that you realise just how fantastic some people can be and who your friends are.’
The shop ran into trouble in 2006, Luton Crown Court heard.
Last year Royal Mail noticed computer records showing an ‘alarming amount’ of cash being held at the sub post office and an unusually large number of stamp transactions.
When an audit in August revealed the cash did not exist, Warnes admitted immediately: ‘The shortage is 100 per cent down to me.’
He had taken £28,597 over two years to prop up the shop, exaggerating the money held in cash at the sub post office so the books balanced.
Kevin McCartney, defending, described his client as someone ‘who was normally scrupulously honest and held in high regard’.
He told the court: ‘This is a case where one sees someone who has made a mess of things. It started out with good intentions to try and keep a business going, a business that is the central hub of the village.’
Once villagers discovered what had happened, he added, they showed ‘touching support’.
He mentioned one anonymous donor who sent Warnes £50 and ‘wished him well’.
Mr McCartney added: ‘The community at large would want him to repay their loans and to maintain the village shop.
‘Their view is that while recognising fully what he did was wrong, they would prefer he is given the opportunity to right that wrong.’
Scammer Sandra Lean claimed she had contacted her publisher (convicted criminal Stephen T Manning/Checkpoint press Ireland) to withdraw her 1st innocence fraud book No Smoke on the 4th October 2019. Read more here
Now that more of Sandra Lean’s intentional bare faced lies, disinformation and misinformation are being exposed by her former “followers” via trial transcripts etc, when will Sandra Lean withdraw her 2nd innocence fraud book? The same applies to fraudster Scott Forbes and his 1st innocence fraud book.
Below are links to a few of the sources where both Sandra Lean and Scott Forbes’ bare faced lies, disinformation and misinformation have been, and continue to be exposed.
During the video killer Sean Toal and Scott Forbes told many outrageous lies.
The following is some dialogue between the pair of innocence fraudsters;
So the police are now driving people about
They’ve been over the wall of a crime scene
Come on anybody with any..
Scott Forbes
Is this the local police then
Sean Toal
Aye started off with the local police and then Dobbie and that arrived
He was a detective superintendent for Edinburgh
Scott Forbes
But this time the place have already let..
Sean Toal
Aye they’ve allowed people to go home covered in Jodi’s blood
Scott Forbes
And what was Dobbie’s answer to that
Sean Toal
Ah he just says ach we’ve carri.. our investigation was the finest police work that we’ve ever carried out
Scott Forbes
So there’s people there that have been involved in finding the body
They’re covered in blood
They don’t get questioned
They get drove about Dalkeith and then they pick on Luke
Sean Toal
Detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie was not appointed as senior investigating officer until gone 03:00hrs, by which time all the family members had left the scene.
And no one was “covered in blood” like killer Sean Toal stated!
This is another intentional bare faced lie!
Alice Walker was the only person to have gone near her grand-daughter Jodi Jones’ body and Alice had said she might have touched her grand-daughters forehead.
The intentional bare faced lie about Alice Walker “cradling” her grand-daughter body was started by sadistic murderer Luke Mitchell!
Janine Jones, Steven Kelly and Alice Walker were driven directly to Newbattle police station, they were not “droveabout” Dalkeith like killer Sean Toal stated and they didn’t go home until after they had been at the police station – where they were asked questions.
Pages 806 and 807 of Janine Jones’ trial testimony describes some of what happened in the early hours of the morning of 1st July 2003;
Tap on the button below to read more, directly from trial transcripts;
Scammer Sandra Lean and her former boyfriend, un-convicted baby killer Billy Middleton were involved in killer Sean Toal’s public relations innocence fraud spin campaign:
In reality – killers Sean Toal and Luke Mitchell had been cohorts since at least 2010.
Sandra Lean has remained (publicly) silent since her bare faced lies, disinformation and misinformation are being exposed by trial transcripts but she recently commented on murderer Sean Toal on Facebook;
Nicola Brennan, who was referred to in Part 296here commented on Sandra’s post;
Whilst over on X Heather Brunt, who was referred to in Part 288here also tweeted on killer Sean Toal – commenting on how fraudster Scott Forbes “worked on his case”;
Tap on the button below to read more about fraudster Scott Forbes;
Killer Sean Toal also refers to himself as Social Sessions on various social media platforms, as well as @seanaldo1985 on X.
Social Sessions tweeted Neil MacKay on the 4th December 2023;
Neil MacKay was involved in the fraudulent 2021 channel 5 TV show Murder In A Small Town. Neil MacKay was referred to in Parts 261 and 265 of this ongoing blog series, both of which can be read by tapping on the buttons below;
On the 7th December 2023 killer Sean Toal asked John Halley to message him.
John Halley was arrested in March 2023 for sex offences (Read more here) and had also been promoting scammer Sandra Lean’s nonsense on social media, although he too has recently gone quiet on this.
Again – since trial transcripts have been published, Sandra Lean has remained silent
Tap on the button below for links to trial transcripts;
INNOCENCE FRAUD WATCH 